Fat kids

"Eric S. Sande" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Seat belt laws are stupid, gun control is not. But gun control is a smokescreen to obscure the
real reasons behind the US's incredible firearms homicide rate. After all, the Canadians seem not
to shoot themselves, and they've got just as many guns.

Yes, much of it is a smokescreen. Real solutions are very hard to understand and take years to
impliment. It's easy for a polititian to point the finger at a gun, or a bicycle helmet and say
"That's the solution, that tangible inatimate object!" It's hard for peopel to grasp that the reason
someone gets hurt has to do with many factors, not just one *thing*.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners aren't socially responsible or
properly trained.

Somewhat like cycling.

But I'm not hand wringing here, I can see the stats and the facts.

On balance, could we save more lives with firearms instruction than seatbelt laws? Probably not.

Many of the people I know are legal gun owners, including myself. You probably know many of them as
well, unfortunately in the current climate being a gun owner is not something you let too many
people know.

However the majority of *legal* gun owners are socially responsible people and are properly trained
(you have to be around here to get a license). If you so much as got busted for a joint in the 60's
you are banned for life from getting a handgun license.

The problems in this world stem from the very few people who are *not* socially responsible, and the
majority are made to pay the price for them ... whether they be gun owners or cyclists or what have
you. You don't have to be smart to live in this society, you just can't be stupid ... and it's the
stupid minority that make themselves a big nuisance.

It's amazing that we all get along as well as we do. Think about all the millions of non violent
social interactions that take place every day. Lethal violence, whether man made or by accident
is certainly rare relative to all those interactions. We're not really that scared to go out and
ride a bike but many peoples perceptions are not based on actual experience but based on media
mind control.

If you really want to do something about the social problems we all have ... fat kids included (c:
... outlaw television. I'm happy to say I've given up making television shows and spend much more
time reading good books and doing stuff than watching that dribble.

Besides, the resolution outside is just incredible!

C.Q.C.

you know? said:

Peter Keller said:

Unfortunately I made the mistake of doing some research and looking up some statistics. My
conclusion: compulsory helmet laws do FAR more harm than good.

Smart man. I plotted the % of cyclist injuries which are head injuries for a period encompassing
the introduction of the law in NZ. Looking at the figures it is impossible to even guess which
year saw helmet use increase from about 43% to over 95%. Funny, that. I guess you've got better
data than me, though - is your Reply-To mail valid? I could do with a bit of detail specifically
to do with children, if you don't mind, because one of our MPs has been bamboozled by the Liddites
into bringing a bill to introduce mandatory helmet wearing for children. It will fail, as it
doesn't have Government support, but there needs to be some careful lobbying to ensure that it
doesn't get resurrected.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Yes, my reply-to is valid But, please, if you write to me, make the subject stand out (eg BICYCLE)
in capital letters so that it doesn't get thrown out with the spam! I am not sure of exact figures,
but since the law was introduced in NZ serious head-injuries and deaths have reduced by about 19%
and bicycling participation (numbers and participation) have reduced by about 34% (our Land
Transport Safety authority; ltsa.govt.nzltsa.govt.nzOpen ↗ ) The numbers are hard to dig out; obviously
the LTSA does not wish it to be generally known that the head-injury rate per bicyclist has gone UP
if anything! The numbers of child bicyclists has gone down by over 70% -- from an unscientific count
of the average numbers of bicycles in school bicycle sheds. So a whole generation is being lost.

--
This message is certified Virus Free as no Microsoft products were used in its preparation or
propagation

"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Eric S. Sande said:

The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners aren't socially responsible or
properly trained.

OK Eric, we'll get you an appointment with the Crips, so you can give them

a

Quoted message said:

training session. But frankly, I think society is better served by having another excuse to arrest
the [censored].

Another excuse? Existing laws aren't enforced as it is. I got no problem with gun control if they
start with the bad guys ... instead of with me. How many Crips you think could get a legal gun
license right now, this day?

The laws that are passed and enforced these days are mostly to raise money, and to harass people in
order to extort more money. We have a local cop here who pulls over everyone he doesn't like for
"marked lane violations". It's an excuse to "arrest the [censored]" even if the guy has to make up a
reason. Frankly, I don't see how that serves society at all. It obviously doesn't, or at least not
that well, since the main problems don't go away.

OKay, so we have a problem ... people on bikes get hurt. How do we take care of it? Pass a helmet
law that only responsible dedicated cyclists will follow and scare away casual cyclists? Sure, just
forget about making people ride with the flow of traffic, or use a headlight at night, or cars
riding in the bike lane and passing too close. Let's ignore all the other ineffective and unenforced
laws and ignore all the idiots on the bottom of the scale and simply pass another law. Let's not
even think about improving traffic conditions.

I almost hit some dufus on a bike the other night. I was riding around a corner on a nice wide
street without any other cars around, on the correct side of the road and had 2 headlights and a
back light plus full reflectors. This other guy was riding a DUIbrid towards me going the wrong way
without a front reflector or light ... and a dark bike with dark clothes to boot. I had to come to a
stop, and waggle my handlebars back and forth before he noticed me. If things stay the way they are,
that guy will be riding the wrong way for years to come ... pass a thousand laws and it still wont
make a difference.

How about starting at the bottom for a change, and enforce laws that already exist?

You know, I can tell you with 100% certainty when a helmet will not affect your chances of being
injured one way or the other ... just make sure cyclists stay on their bikes and don't get hit.
That's all. If you can figure out how that could be accomplished, then helmets will be redundant.

C.Q.C.

"Kamus of Kadizhar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

OTOH, lots of the helmet laws don't really make sense. For example, helmets are mandatory for kids
under 16. OK, so we have parents riding with kids; parents have no helmets, kids do. What's the
message here?

Adults are allowed to do things kids are not. They have to learn to live with it. What about
driving? let your kids do that too? Drinking? using a chainsaw?

Quoted message said:

So, around my house, the rules are simple. No helmet, no ride. Anything with wheels.

Ladders? Standing on chairs? furniture with casters?

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy said:

Neither would I, *but* in the UK the initial trial of the compulsory seat belt law resulted in
the largest recorded year-on-year rise in pedestrian, cyclist and rear-seat passenger
fatalities, and no measurable change in driver fatality rates. This was known at the time the
law was made permanent but the report was buried by the sponsoring department until after the
relevant debates.

ISTR a discussion somewhere that perturbing any system will result in wild swings - thus when you
begin innoculation against a disease, often the first visible result is a sharp spike in its
incidence. Something to do with chaos theory - any mathematicians around?

OTOH, lots of the helmet laws don't really make sense. For example, helmets are mandatory for kids
under 16. OK, so we have parents riding with kids; parents have no helmets, kids do. What's the
message here?

I've seen people refuse to ride if they had to wear a helmet because of "fashion" concerns....

OTOH, I believe in helmets - they save lots of nasty recovery time, and scalp injuries *hurt*.

So, around my house, the rules are simple. No helmet, no ride. Anything with wheels. Scooters,
bikes, skates, whatever. And it applies to all of us. (I do get some strange looks when I'm on a

That's the rule in our house, too. I don't ride the scooter, though!

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

frkrygow said:

Kamus of Kadizhar said:

ISTR a discussion somewhere that perturbing any system will result in wild swings - thus when you
begin innoculation against a disease, often the first visible result is a sharp spike in its
incidence. Something to do with chaos theory - any mathematicians around?

Maybe David Johnson will chime in. I'm merely an engineer - but AFAIK, "perturbing any system will
result in wild swings" is in general, false. Counterexamples abound.

True. I should have been more specific. Any chaotic system - such as nearly every real-world system
in which people are involved. I know the innoculation example is true - I think it was in England
and smallpox. When the innoculations started (in the 50s?) there was an immediate increase in
smallpox. The public howled. The guy in charge stuck to his guns, and ultimately was proven right. I
just wonder if the same is true of helmet laws (or any such law.) Chaos theory is pretty
fascinating, in that it turns many of our "common sense" assumptions on their heads.

Quoted message said:

Yep. All normal kids have always bumped their heads on the ground while growing up. This has been
true for the last 100,000 years at least!

Yup. And that's why we wear helmets. I know that if I get whacked by a 68 Buick moving at 70 MPH I'm
pretty much dead, no matter what I wear. But for the majority of bumps helmets either do no harm, or
help to prevent painful and occasionally (temporarily) disfiguring injuries. Heck, if my house rules
prevent one trip to the emergency room it's worth it. I know on one occasion it's worked: my then-5
year old took a header off an embankment and landed pretty much on her head. No harm done, but the
helmet was trashed.

--
o__ | If you're old, eat right and ride a decent bike. ,>/'_ | Q. (_)\(_) | Usenet posting`

Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:26:23 -0500, <[email hidden]>,

frkrygow' 'frkrygow'@omitcc.ysu.edu said:

And it doesn't matter anyway. Whatever the minute details of the personal motivation, the net
effect was the same: institute MHL, watch sudden drop in cycling.

A few anecdotes:

It didn't stop me since I'd worn one long before the law. I've always worn seat belts too and
never been fat.

That Vancouver and Victoria are both subject to MHL, and they have some of the highest percentages
of cycling commuters as any city in Canada or the US, denies that helmets, hills and rain are
adequate excuses for not riding. There's more bike shops here now than in 1995. Plastic hats are
even pretty good in the rain.

The bike safety courses presented in 3rd - 7th grades merely stress fitting the helmet correctly.
Greater attention is paid to bike handling, visibility and traffic rules.
--
zk

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:29:09 -0500, "frkrygow"

frkrygow'@omitcc.ysu.edu said:

the American handwringer society Safe Kids

I can just picture them driving to meetings in their SUVs...

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Kevan Smith said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's what they'd like you to think...

We: cyclists. Them: non-cyclists.

We're all pedestrians sometime.

Yes, and nudists, too.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 12:57:52 -0500, "Eric S. Sande" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners aren't socially responsible or
properly trained.

Translation: In Eric's world, if you aren't a liberal, your education is incomplete. If you're a
gunowner, your evolution is incomplete.

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:01:02 -0600, Zippy the Pinhead

from Xavier Onassis Associates said:

Kevan Smith said:

Quoted message said:

> That's what they'd like you to think...

We: cyclists. Them: non-cyclists.

We're all pedestrians sometime.

Yes, and nudists, too.

Only with the lights out so the fat kids don't see.

--
[email hidden]
What is the reality of the situation?
3

Kamus of Kadizhar said:

OTOH, I believe in helmets - they save lots of nasty recovery time, and scalp injuries *hurt*.

Any hat works just as well, from personal experience.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:41:14 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Eric S. Sande said:

The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners aren't socially responsible or
properly trained.

OK Eric, we'll get you an appointment with the Crips, so you can give them a training session. But
frankly, I think society is better served by having another excuse to arrest the [censored].

That problem is caused by urban society in dense cities; and those are criminals with no respect for
the law. How do you expect that making laws about guns will stop them, let alone protect the
innocent law-abiding people?

You really want to stop them, arm and train every law-abiding citizen. The gangs will disappear
soon after.

Quoted message said:

Matt O.

--
Rick Onanian

Just zis Guy said:

frkrygow' 'frkrygow'@omitcc.ysu.edu said:

the American handwringer society Safe Kids

I can just picture them driving to meetings in their SUVs...

And forcing off the road as many cyclists as they can!

Matt O'Toole <[email hidden]> wrote:
: The problem is poverty, and lack of education and opportunity

it's not poverty, either. i felt a lot safer in bucharest, rumania than i do in some larger and
richer american cities.

poverty is a factor and so is density but i believe a lot of it is cultural. put bluntly we
americans are taught to solve our problems with a club.
--
david reuteler [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners aren't socially responsible or
properly trained.

Quoted message said:

Translation: In Eric's world, if you aren't a liberal, your education is incomplete. If you're a
gunowner, your evolution is incomplete.

Nicely stated. But completely off target :-).

What the heck did I ever say that would lead you to believe that I was a liberal?

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email hidden]__________

Q. said:

OKay, so we have a problem ... people on bikes get hurt.

I think we should not accept that statement - or rather, not accept it as a statement of much
significance.

People get hurt doing all sorts of things. For example, each year in the USA, emergency room visits
resulting from playing basketball outnumber those from riding bikes. And I'd bet bicycling hours
outnumber basketball hours. But I've yet to hear the handwringers call for laws regulating
basketball.

Society needs to accept the fact that there will always be injuries and health problems. And when
evaluating them, the balance of detriments and benefits needs to be used. That is, we shouldn't
discourage a beneficial activity to reduce a tiny number of serious injuries.

This applies not only to bikes, but to walking to school, playing on playgrounds, running around the
neighborhood, etc. (All of which have been decried by those of the nanny mentality.)

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

Rick Onanian said:

That problem is caused by urban society in dense cities; and those are criminals with no respect
for the law.

It has nothing to do with density. Tokyo has some of the highest density in the world, yet one of
the lowest crime rates. Detroit currently has the highest crime rate in the US, but it's actually
quite low in density -- there are people farming the huge tracts of vacant land right in the middle
of the city! The problem is poverty, and lack of education and opportunity, which can exist equally
well in big cities or small towns. The highest crime rates in the US, which change from year to
year, are often in smaller cities like Holyoke, MA, or Gary, IN. In Los Angeles, the highest crime
areas are the ones with *lowest* density. The infamous South Central LA is mostly single family
houses on generous lots. Some other high crime areas are practically rural, with large lots, chicken
coops, and the occasional scruffy goat among the pit bulls.

Matt O.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Eric S. Sande said:

The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners aren't socially responsible or
properly trained.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

OK Eric, we'll get you an appointment with the Crips, so you can give them a training session. But
frankly, I think society is better served by having another excuse to arrest the [censored].

I guarantee after an eight hour course they'd be shooting each other much more efficiently.

We had a high profile gang gun "battle" here recently, in broad daylight on a city street in a
middle class neighborhood.

Three shooters going after one person (on a bicycle no less).

The target got killed more by luck than skill, he bled to death from the single shot out of many
that hit him. A bus driver was wounded in the crossfire.

We're talking multiple gunshots over several city blocks, it was a completely inept performance.

A while ago when I was living at the old place there was a shootout at the gas station. The shooters
were no more than twenty feet apart and fired every round they had at each other.

Neither one hit the other and a woman on the other side of the street was grazed.

The typical gang action here is 9mm bang-bang [censored], they just aren't up to combat pistol standard.

The two successful murders that happened within the last five years within a half a block from my
front door were contact shots, both of which occurred at the same club, a known gang hangout.

This is going on in the most heavily gun-controlled city in the US, by far. As well as the most
heavily policed city in the US--with the highest per capita murder rate.

No 'burbs to smooth out the statistics, of course.

Quoted message said:

That problem is caused by urban society in dense cities; and those are criminals with no respect
for the law. How do you expect that making laws about guns will stop them, let alone protect the
innocent law-abiding people?

Quoted message said:

You really want to stop them, arm and train every law-abiding citizen. The gangs will disappear
soon after.

Some of us are realizing that and trying to get a cultural change going on. Homeland security
begins at home, but frankly the LEOs aren't interested in what happens on 14th Street NW or east of
the river.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email hidden]__________

In article said:

People get hurt doing all sorts of things. For example, each year in the USA, emergency room
visits resulting from playing basketball outnumber those from riding bikes. And I'd bet bicycling
hours outnumber basketball hours. But I've yet to hear the handwringers call for laws regulating
basketball.

Hard to say. Here are lists from

leisuretrends.comfun facts.aspOpen ↗

Apparently, this is a group that does leisure activities studies:

* The top ten recreational activities for women are walking, aerobics, exercise, biking, jogging,
basketball, lifting weights, golf, swimming and tennis.

* The top ten for men are golf, basketball, walking, jogging,
biking, lifting weights, football, hiking, fishing and hunting.

I'm guessing these are in order of popularity, in which case they'd probably be about equal.

-- Dan

--
Dan Cosley ([email hidden] * cs.umn.edu~cosleyOpen ↗) GroupLens Research
Lab, Univ of MN (movielens.umn.edumovielens.umn.eduOpen ↗ * 612.624.8372) *** Just a foot soldier in the Army
of Truth ***